Particularly, this paragraph, and particularly the portion I highlighted in bold:

I had a recent (very successful!) gallery show of prints up to 20"x30" from the E-3. Got many comments about how "natural" the prints looked. Several people said they didn't realize at first they were photographs. They used terms such as "relaxed, smooth and inviting" to describe them. Several, including other photographers, thought they were from film, though the photographers said they were puzzled by the lack of film grain. They were surprised to hear they were digital. Several, including buyers, said they generally don't like prints from digital cameras because they are too "self-conscious" in that they have too much unnecessary detail, too obviously photographic, and too unpleasant to live with on the wall, even if initially striking.

What do people think? It's a very interesting observation, in my opinion.

There's another consideration. If you've bought a kick-backside camera and a kick-backside lens, you're going to want to show off their abilities. You're less inclined to try some lo-fi effects. The camera manufacturers want you to buy as much as possible. You need all those megapixels and you need that a-mazing lens. You want to do things that show them off as much as possible. Artistic considerations are set aside for technical showcasing. The results can be dazzling. Especially if you throw in some deft post-processing. But for many people this is digital. Too much detail, too much colour, too much "pop". And they find film comforting in that they perceive it as warmer, softer and more human. Now we know film can give technically amazing results and digital can be understated. It's just when people see the "hyper-real", they associate it with digital.

But it does give some food for thought. Maybe we do need to back off a little and think about what we're doing. Is the gear determining what we do or are we the ones deciding where we're going?